yes. I consider that a pretty bug issue. If people can still do it the old way, and add their graffiti, then the new method becomes less scientific and actually creates issues.
see slide 13 from Oreilly here: http://oreilly.com/catalog/9780596802813/ Oreilly folks are encouraging comments. I really don't see why it cant mimic reply functionality while being a RT. I click RT and the text shows up in the update textarea and I can edit, but its still an "in_retweet_to_etc_etc" post. The reply meme followed this. I hit reply and it takes me to the same place, with a few meta bits defined. It seems odd that this usability is different when there is already a behavior happening. On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 1:38 PM, iphone.noob <wardialer2...@gmail.com>wrote: > > Will wrote: > > My mindset was that why hold back a feature that solves one problem > > just because it doesn't solve two. What I didn't take into > > consideration is that it creates another problem - disparate methods > > of retweeting because people will revert back to the old method of > > retweeting when they DO want to comment on the original tweet. That > > makes any method of aggregating retweets posted via the API method > > incomplete. That is a BIG minus. Almost big enough for me to switch > > sides on this issue. > > You're right on the mark with your comments. Nearly everyone in my > Twitter social circle uses RT with added commentary. In most cases > they truncate or abbreviate the original message to make room for > their addition. A Retweet function without a text attribute is > really surprising. >